Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
The amendment filed on 07/29/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
2. Claims 1-9, 11 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
(1) In claim 1, lines 10-11, “the overall first thickness blade” has no clear antecedent basis.
(2) In claims 2 and 3, line 1, “said at least one” lacks antecedent basis.
(3) In claim 6, line 2, “a cap structure” is vague and undefined. It is suggested the phrase be changed to --said cap area--. Note line 2 of claim 4.
(4) In claim 7, lines 1 and 2, “said at least one” lacks antecedent basis.
(5) In claim 15, line 2, “the first hard coating” has no antecedent basis. It appears claim 15 should depend from claim 2.
(6) In claim 16, line 2, “the second hard coating” has no antecedent basis. It appears claim 16 should depend from claim 3.
(7) In claim 19, lines 1 and 2, “said second thickness” and “said first thickness” should read --said overall second thickness-- and --said overall first thickness--, respectively.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 103
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
2. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skrobis et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0328789, hereinafter “Skrobis”) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,960,559, hereinafter “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, Skrobis discloses:
a first blade (60, see Fig.5 as annotated below) comprising a first substrate (11) having a first thickness dimension, said first substrate (11) having one or more first coatings (62,64,66) disposed thereon, said first coatings (62,64,66) having an overall first thickness (T1) of all coating layers;
PNG
media_image1.png
550
848
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a second blade (50, see Fig.4 as annotated above) comprising a second substrate (11) having a second thickness dimension that is the same as said first thickness dimension of the first substrate (11) of the first blade (60), said second blade (50) having one or more second coatings (52,54,56,58) disposed thereon, said second coatings (52,54,56,58) having an overall second thickness (T2) of all coating layers;
wherein the overall first thickness (T1) is less than the overall second thickness (T2) as claimed except Skrobis fails to show a razor cartridge.
Kim shows a first blade (10a) and a second blade (10e) used in a razor cartridge (100, see Fig.6) to allow simultaneously using of the blades (10a,10e) for shaving.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify Skrobis by incorporating the blades (50,60) into a cartridge for the advantage set forth as taught by Kim.
Regarding claim 2, at least one (64) of Skrobis’ one or more first coatings (62,64,66) is a first hard coating (64, see paragraph [0045], line 13).
Regarding claim 3, at least one (56) of Skrobis’ one or more second coatings (52,54,56,58) is a second hard coating (56, see paragraph [0041], line 1).
Regarding claim 4, a front of Kim’s cartridge (100) comprises a guard area (2), and a back of said cartridge (100) comprises a cap area (3). Skrobis thus modified above also possesses such characteristics.
Regarding claim 5, Kim teaches arranging the thinner blade (10a) adjacent to said guard area (10, e.g., at the front of the cartridge) to allow for adequate shaving with lower cutting resistance while reducing skin irritation (see column 9, lines 16-18). Skrobis thus modified also possesses such characteristics (e.g., having the first/thinner blade 60 arranged at the front of the cartridge).
Regarding claim 6, Kim teaches arranging the thicker (10e) adjacent to a cap structure 4, e.g., at the rear of the cartridge) to ensure sufficient support stiffness and smooth discharge of shaving substances (see column 9, lines 18-20). Skrobis thus modified above also possesses such characteristics (e.g., having the second/thicker blade 50 arranged at the rear of the cartridge).
Regarding claim 7, Skrobis’ one (56, having a thickness of less than about 3,000 Angstroms, see paragraph [0041], lines 15-16) of said one or more second coatings (52,54,56,58) is at least two times as thick as one (64, having a thickness as small as 300 Angstroms, see paragraph [0045], lines 7-9 referring to U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0031794 which discloses the hard coating thickness as small as 00 Angstroms, see paragraph [0031], lines 11-12 of the ‘794 document) of said one or more first coatings (62,64,66).
Regarding claim 8, Skrobis’ first hard coating (64) has a thickness that falls in the claimed range of from about 150 Angstroms to about 1800 Angstroms (see paragraph [0045], lines 7-9 referring to U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0031794 which discloses a preferable thickness ranging from about 500 Angstroms to about 1,800 Angstroms, see paragraph [0031], lines 11-14 of the ’794 document).
Regarding claim 9, Skrobis’ second hard coating (56) has a thickness (preferably 500 Angstroms to 1,500 Angstroms, see paragraph [0041], lines 16-17) that falls in the claimed range of from about 500 Angstroms to about 3500 Angstroms.
Regarding claim 11, Skrobis shows the second hard coating (56) but not the first hard coating (64) comprising a carbon containing material, chromium containing material, niobium containing material, boron containing material, and titanium containing material, or any combination thereof (see paragraph [0041], lines 1-8). To further modify Skrobis by having the first hard coating (64) also comprises the same material as that of the second hard coating (56) to simplify manufacture as desired would have been obvious to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 14, Kim further shows (see Fig.7) at least one third razor blade (10b) disposed between the first blade (10a) and the second blade (10e). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify Skrobis by providing the razor cartridge with a third blade (having at least one hard coating) between the first blade (60) and the second blade (50) for a close shave as taught by Kim.
Regarding claim 15, Kim teaches having the first blade (10a) identical to the third blade (10b, see Fig.7 and column 9, lines 24-25). Skrobis thus modified has the third blade identical to the first blade (60) as taught by Kim and has the same hard coating as that of the first blade (60) as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, Kim teaches, in another interpretation, at least one third razor blade (10d, see Fig.7) disposed between the first blade (10a) and the second blade (10e), and the third blade (10d) being identical to the second blade (10e, see column 9, lines 26-27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Skrobis by providing the razor cartridge with a third blade (having at least one hard coating) between the first blade (60) and the second blade (50) for a close shave. Skrobis thus modified has the third blade identical to the second blade (50) as taught by Kim and has substantially the same hard coating as that of the second blade (50) as claimed.
Regarding claim 17, Skrobis’ second hard coating (56, less than about 3,000 Angstroms, see paragraph [0041], lines 15-16) is at least two times as thick as said first hard coating (64, can be as small as 300 Angstroms, see paragraph [0045], lines 7-9 referring to U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0031794 which discloses the hard coating thickness can be as small as 300 Angstroms, see paragraph [0031], lines 11-12 of the ‘794 document).
Regarding 18, a thickness of Skrobis’ first hard coating (64) ranges in thickness less than about 800 Angstroms (see paragraph [0045], lines 7-9 referring to U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0031794 which discloses the hard coating thickness preferably ranging from about 500 Angstroms to about 1,800 Angstroms, see paragraph [0031], lines 11-14 of the ‘794 document), and a thickness of Skrobis’ second hard coating (56) is greater than about 800 Angstroms (see paragraph [0041], lines 16-17, preferably ranging from about 500 Angstroms to about 1,500 Angstroms).
Regarding claim 19, the ratio (T2/T1) of Skrobis’ overall second thickness (T2) to the overall first thickness (T1) is greater than 1.0 (see the annotated Figs.4-5). The claimed ration of about 1.5 to about 4.5 is not patentably distinct over Skrobis because the general concept of having the overall second thickness of the second blade’s all coating layers being greater than the overall first thickness of the first blade’s all coating layers is clearly taught by Skrobis, and it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to select a certain ratio range, such as the claimed about 1.5 to about 4.5, for Skrobis’ ratio range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claim Rejection – Nonstatutory Double Patenting
1. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
2. Claims 1-7, 11, 14-18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 9 and 12-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,162,174. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite substantially the same invention with the claims of this instant application having a broader scope (e.g., without requiring the first blade being proximal to a front end of said cartridge, and the second blade proximal to a back of the cartridge).
Instant Application Corresponding to Patent ‘174
claim 1 claim 1
claim 2 claim 2
claim 3 claim 3
claim 4 claim 4
claim 5 claim 5
claim 6 claim 6
claim 7 claim 7
claim 11 claim 9
claim 14 claim 12
claim 15 claim 13
claim 16 claim 14
claim 17 claim 15
claim 18 claim 16
Remarks
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot I light of the above new ground(s) of rejection. Applicants fail to argue dependent claims individually. Accordingly, they stand or fall with independent claim 1.
The term “about” as cited in claims 8, 9, 18, 19 is defined as “+/- 10 percent of each number” (see page 9, lines 3-5 of the specification).
Action Made Final
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HWEI-SIU PAYER whose telephone number is (571)272-4511. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Friday from 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/HWEI-SIU C PAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights